Book Reviews
Recent reviews from Slashdot readers:
- Advanced Excel for Scientific Data Analysis Learn to turn Excel into something that rivals Mathematica using VBA, brains, and a heaping helping of fortitude.(Jack Herrington's review.)
- Nagios 3 Enterprise Network Monitoring A great book for anyone using Nagios as more than a casual user.(jgoguen's review.)
- Schneier on Security Schneier argues that security is not something you can buy; it is something you must get.(Ben Rothke's review.)
Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
5887203
story
Comments: 263 +- Hardware: IE8 Beats Other Browsers In Laptop Battery Life on Sunday September 13, @04:44PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpower.gif); width:59px; height:66px;
power
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicie.gif); width:64px; height:64px;
msie
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmozilla.gif); width:80px; height:64px;
mozilla
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicportables.gif); width:53px; height:54px;
portables
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicwindows.gif); width:49px; height:65px;
windows
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topichardware.gif); width:64px; height:55px;
hardware
WARM3CH writes "AnandTech tested a laptop with an AMD CPU, a laptop with an Intel CPU, and a netbook to compare battery life while running Internet Explorer 8, Opera 10, Firefox 3.5, Safari 4, and Chrome. They tested on simple web pages and flash-infested ones. IE8 had the best battery life on both laptops (followed by FF + AdBlock), and Safari had the worst battery life. On the netbook, Chrome was slightly ahead of IE8. The report concludes: 'Overall, Internet Explorer and Firefox + AdBlock consistently place near the top, with Chrome following closely behind. Opera 10 Beta 3 didn't do as well as Opera 9.6.4, and in a couple quick tests, it doesn't appear that the final release of Opera 10 changes the situation at all. Opera in general — version 9 or 10 — looks like it doesn't do as well as the other major browsers. Safari is at the back, by a large margin, on all three test notebooks. We suspect that Safari 4 does better under OS X, however, so the poor Windows result probably won't matter to most Safari users.'"
No man in the world has more courage than the man who can stop after
eating one peanut.
-- Channing Pollock
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
So in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
IE8 + adblock would give even better results!
Seriously though, how can you browse the web *without* adblock? I've shoulder surfed people doing it, and I'd rather eat my own hand.
Re:So in theory (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't have a problem when you don't know any better.
Parent
Re:So in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't have a problem when you don't know any better.
It's also not a problem if you simply don't browse anywhere there's too many ads. See ads you don't like? Just close the fucking website, it's a worthless piece of shit anyway if it puts ads first and content later.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
deviantART once had a Flash add which utilised 100% of my CPU, and since it was at the time a single-core CPU, I was barely able to bring up the Task Manager to kill it. Interestingly enough, it was that experience which pushed me to using Adblock Plus.
Point is, deviantART is hardly a worthless piece of shit. Sometimes they just made bad choices about what ads to use. Generalizations are bad, m'kay?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While the work of the artists who post on DeviantArt may or might not be worthless pieces of shit, a web page that sucks 100% of your CPU making it difficult to even close the page, never mind view it, most definitely is.
Re:So in theory (Score:4, Funny)
Aren't you looking back right now?
No.. If I was, I wouldn't be able to see the monitor.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I really wouldn't switch to IE 8 for this, or many other reasons that it might supposedly be better. It's 7 minutes longer than FF with adblock, or 4% longer. Not nearly enough difference to justify using a program that doesn't work the way that I like, not to mention one that presents such a major target for malware.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So in theory (Score:4, Interesting)
I have to agree. I'm on a Macbook Pro now and using Snow Leopard with it's 64-bit Safari. Everyone is saying how fast and quick Safari is...along with Chrome, but the simple fact is both of these browsers don't have Adblock so they're actually SLOWER than Firefox with Adblock because they all have to load in those ads.
Maybe Safari and Chrome are fast on a test....but in real world situations without adblock, they're slow.
Parent
Re:So in theory (Score:5, Informative)
If your Safari doesn't have AdBlock, install it: http://burgersoftware.com/en/safariadblock [burgersoftware.com]
(32-bit for now...source available)
I also recommend ClickToFlash: http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/ [github.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have this fascinating ability that adblock users apparently lack: it's called "Ignore Irrelevance". You see, while those ads may be there ... I don't really see them. They are there if I concentrate hard enough to notice them ... but otherwise, they're not really there.
Probably explains how I can surf without adblock.
And, oh yeah, I occasionally like to support the site I'm visiting when I notice something actually interesting.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Spoiled by speed. That is really funny.
When dial up internet finally became available in my area, pages loaded fairly quickly. Sometimes, I had to wait for a page, but overall, pages loaded fairly quickly. As time went on, and Flash and Java became more and more embedded in pages, my browser slowed more and more. Javascript slowed it even more. The browser itself became ever larger, both in code size and memory requirements. Near the end of my dial up experience, browsing was definitely painful. Even
Re:So in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Every single one of these articles instantly devolves into a thread about AdBlock. Yes, we get it. A lot of people here like AdBlock. Can we stop fucking posting the same fucking thread in every fucking single fucking article? Christ.
It's like Ron Paul in the politics tab during the election.
Parent
Re:So in theory (Score:5, Funny)
It's like Ron Paul in the politics tab during the election.
Yeah, well, if you were using Firefox, you could get the RonPaulBlock plugin... ~
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I for one... (Score:4, Funny)
I for one welcome our new battery life saving overl-... wait... what?
The real conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash is a pig, no matter what browser you use.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention that Flash under anything else than IE + Windows runs like a slug.
Re:The real conclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
And that is why IE8 has the best battery life - the IE version of the Flash player is hardware accelerated.
Parent
Re:Wait a second... (Score:4, Interesting)
Very simple experiment - obtain a temperature monitor that can show you CPU and GPU temperatures. (This usually needs discrete graphics, although some integrated graphics systems hide the northbridge temperature as the "PCI" temperature.) Monitor CPU load, as well.
Start a flash video in IE. Note what happens to all temperatures - CPU load will be low, CPU temps won't change much, GPU temps will rise.
Now, start a flash video in any other browser (that isn't IE-based.) CPU load will be (comparatively) high, and CPU temps will rise. GPU temps will stay steady, or at most climb a couple degrees just because of being heated by the CPU.
Parent
Re:The real conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
But the thing is, IE processing pages with ads and flash was *more* efficient and less demanding on the CPU than Firefox processing pages with no ads at all.
That comes to me as quite a shock, given that Flash is, in fact, a pig.
Parent
Re:The real conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Kindof. It may just mean that the flash plugin for IE is less battery intensive than the flash plugin for FF.
We'd have to no-flash, flash-only, and a mix to figure it out. The tests here didn't.
This can't turn into a comparison of Microsoft vs Mozilla... it's probably more like a comparison of Adobe programmers on different teams.
Parent
Yeah right (Score:5, Funny)
It's all about wget on single user mode.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
RMS, is that you?
Bad Headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing beats Links or Lynx when it comes it this.
Did they have total control? (Score:2, Insightful)
2% difference... big deal. (Score:5, Informative)
The difference is within background noise - as are all these stupid tests.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I skimmed the article and couldn't find anything on their method. There is a lot of relevent data that i simply couldn't see
1) Which has the lowest wakeups/bat usage once the page is rendered (some of us still read content instead of loading pages all day)?
2) Which has the lowest wakeups/bat usage on an active page, facebook,gmail,etc?
3) Which uses the least CPU/bat to render pages?
4) is there any difference in CPU/bat usage of flash?
Then there is so much to be asked about the method:
a)Was the environment c
Re:2% difference... big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, really. It's a meaningless number.
There's no control in this experiment (and, no, I don't mean "control group.") The fact that they were flogging away at public, and probably dynamic (read: inconsistent) websites totally invalidates the entire comparison.
If Anand wanted to take it seriously, they should have eliminated more variables. If they'd set up a dedicated, light-weight web server running in a controlled minimalist environment (bare Slackware+Apache, perhaps?) somewhere on a dedicated LAN, that would have been be a good start. They might even have used a RAM disk to ensure consistent access times to the data being served.
Hell: They should have even measured the battery voltage both before and after the tests, to eliminate (or at least quantify) any incongruity in the charging circuit's behavior. And they should've made sure to rotate their testing, so as to average it out as the battery ages (which it quite measurably will in these relatively-abusive full-charge - full-discharge tests).
But they didn't do these things. And it might seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but the results are close enough that hairs must be split.
Meanwhile, I think battery life while browsing is an interesting and very practical metric which is often overlooked these days. I applaud them for attempting and documenting such a feat, which I'm sure was relatively time-consuming, and I admonish them for doing a piss-poor job of it.
(And, no: I don't care which browser "wins." I have most of the tested browsers installed on my own laptop, and for me, it would be instructive to know which one will conserve battery life best in times when I know I'll be without power for a long period of time.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you propose, AC, that adding more random noise to the test would improve the reliability of the results moreso than controlling the test environment?
I'm no statistician, either, but your proposal sounds like it would be more difficult (define "random" in this context, including time of day), more time-consuming, and less accurate.
Re:2% difference... big deal. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, seriously, who cares?
If you get 2 hours of battery time, this gains you about 2 minutes and half.
For 5 hours of battery time you get 6 minutes extra.
If you really want to extend battery time, turning down the screen brightness by a notch will probably have more effect.
Parent
Re:2% difference... big deal. (Score:4, Insightful)
You should use your favourite browser, because you'll be more productive in it.
Teach yourself to read or write 10% faster, and that'll dwarf the savings a different browser provides.
Parent
Battery life test (Score:4, Insightful)
So IE8 is more battery friendly? Is that before or after having to install a virus scanner to keep an eye on what IE is doing?
Uhh.. whiskey tango foxtrot? (Score:2, Funny)
Slow news day, guys? I mean, seriously -- who is going to choose a browser based on how long it'll keep working in a laptop battery life test? And what's the control group for this test, anyway? In the real world, some guy decides he wants some ramen and suddenly my wifi connectivity goes to crap. What if it's really bright in the room and I have to turn the brightness up on the LCD? Well and truly, there's about a hundred things more important than which browser I'm using that affect battery life.
Now, I'm
I think... (Score:4, Insightful)
Given how far behind technically IE is otherwise, I think this is called "grasping at straws".
It seems the article also tested a netbook (Score:5, Informative)
But what is the justification? (Score:3, Interesting)
In other news (Score:2)
Chrome beats other browsers by 4% in sound card usage.
Seriously, I don't think the "raw" laptop battery life means something else that what it means...
What would be somehow an interesting test is to measure the number of cycles/instructions a browser needs to:
* load a page.
* render a page.
* animate a page during 1 minutes.
Of course, with parallelism, it surely isn't as simple as that, but at least it would give an hint about the efficiency of your browser. Maybe someone can come with a more interesting test
I don't know about battery life, but... (Score:2)
I tried Opera a few months ago, but found that it broke formatting on a lot of sites that I frequent and had a lot
This is a better test. (Score:2)
A far better test metric would be CPU/mem/swap usage. If those 3 didn't have a direct relationship to battery life nothing will.
I would like to see the test run using lynx also.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Firefox has been shown to make it so under not especially exotic conditions.
That's why it's number 1.
Too bad (Score:2)
/. homepage (Score:2)
Considering that it takes my poor Eee PC up to a minute to render the /. homepage at 100% cpu usage with FF3, I'm not surprised.
This makes sense - it's better integrated. (Score:3, Insightful)
Internet Explorer is 'just' a shell around Explorer - all the components it needs are pretty much there and often locked into memory (which means not swapped out, and disk access is the mindkiller I mean batter killer). I imagine this is sufficient to cover the difference.
Still not giving up my Flashblock+Adblock+Noscript though. Especially on the laptop.
New IE8 Commercial (Score:5, Funny)
Evil-Doer (played by Jerry Seinfeld): Agent Jack Bauer! How can this be? That laptop had three, maybe four minutes of battery life left on it, at most! How could you possibly have downloaded those files in time?!
Jack Bauer: Simple.
Bauer turns to face the camera, which quickly zooms in on his face.
Jack Bauer: I used Internet Explorer 8.
A giant explosion rocks the screen, and a huge Internet Explorer logo appears.
Announcer: Internet Explorer 8. Because on the Internet, seconds matter.
Of course it does... (Score:4, Funny)
Speaking as a scientist.... (Score:4, Insightful)
... those people aren't.
"Each test was run at least twice." If they were run at least 10 or 20 times you'd be able to estimate from the variance in the scores if the differences were significant.
The netbook had almost identical measures for all except Safari (caveat to significance, as above). Does anyone think it matters that the two laptops were running Vista and IE8, a fairly integrated collection of software, likely installed together, whereas all the others were thrown on top of an operating system that never could get the hang of running much more than itself.
Anyone want to put odds on whether the difference in drive activity in trying to (1) run MS operating system with MS vs. non-MS software and (2) run stuff installed together vs. installed after, would be proportional to the observed differences in battery life?
No no no! (Score:3, Funny)
Infections last longer with IE8. Read the summary if not the article. Sheesh!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your information is 4 years out of date. Explorer and IExplore are completely separate components.